JimmyLee

The C2 and C3 were not conservative design changes. They were RADICAL. I long for the old days of design, when GM wasn't afraid.

MikeG37

100%

kp1a

But then everyone complains that it has different headlights, taillights, wheelbase, etc. etc. etc.......
GM can't win until the final product is available and everyone realizes that it's vastly better than the previous generation. Happens every time.

sportcruiser

To me, what matters is that she is beautiful. Radical? Well, as long as it is beautiful, sure. (Some people think that radical design changes are a reflection of confusion or no real design philosophy). To that point, I think the C6 is a vastly better looking car than the C5, but if was hardly radical. The Pontiac Aztec was radical.

From everything I have seen, I think GM has nailed it. And, if they can work in more future friendly technology, they will really have something.

capevettes

The changes in generations were much more revolutionary in the 60's than the evolutionary designs between generations today. I liked it. GM seems to be afraid that too radical a change will not be greeted well and cost them sales.

1963 was a radical departure from the solid axle cars of 53-62

1968 was a radical departure from the mid years of 63-67 as well.

C5 to C6 was a more moderate transition and I expect the C7 to be similar. While I would like to see more radical changes, I'm sure the 7th generation car will be a great one. GM does just enough to make your current car obsolete.

Racer X

They were on the same chassis. Not completely radical. The engines were the essentially the same 2 designs. They just kept swapping cranks, cams, and heads. ZL1 was an exception.

The Corvette has had the same long hood short back since the beginning. C1 to C2 radical. C3 to C4 radical. C4 to C5 radical.

C3 had the most variation in the body over the years.

JoesC5

But, the radical design of the 1963 C2 was partly eased in two years earlier by the rear end design of the 1961 C1. The jump in design of the 1968 was radical even though it only pertained to the body. The C4 to C5 was the most radical as it had major changes in the body's design aong with suspension and drivetrain changes.

While the C6's body was not a radical change from the C5, the aluminum frame used on the Z06 was a radical change(Z06 was designed from day one for the Z06, not a later afterthought).

Paulchristian

sportcruiser

...and it's worth noting that in today's world a Corvette must be stable at extremely high speeds and relatively safe. These requirements force certain design elements.

For me, most radical designs are ugly and are the result of a really poor previous design. I'm hoping for an evolutionary design, with some revolutionary technology. In other words, I would much rather spend money on titanium, carbon fiber and active suspension than brute force horsepower.

JoesC5

I've had my "antique" C6 Z06 up to 162 MPH(on the track) and it was extremely stable(and I'm not a race car driver nor am I younger then 70). If I could run it at 200 MPH(on the track) I wouldn't hesitate for a second. How much more stable does a radical designed car need to be? Same goes for expensive materials, revolutionary technology, etc.

But, if I were to hit the wall at Talledega at 162 MPH, I doubt if a stock C7 Corvette(one without a full roll cage, etc) would be "safe". After that hit, I wouldn't be riding from the track in a Corvette unless it was owned by the funeral home they were taking my body to.

John T

Haha ! I am glad you are enjoying your Z Joe ! I sure miss mine..

In 86 I had my stock 85 Z51 4+3 at 155 on the digital speedo at 3:00 am on a Sunday morning . It was a large 2 lane road ,Route 32 in Maryland. I was a little younger at the time!

McGirk94LT1

I don't mean to offend anyone but let's face reality here. The OP's comment was a reflection of someone who thinks new cars are not as good older cars, styling wise in this case or otherwise. A mentality of they just don't make em like they used to... because that's when I was young.

Again, not trying to be offensive here, but terms of reality are not formed from feelings, but facts.

The c1, well, it was the beginning. A huge effort at something new.

The c2 introduced the 327, the 396 big block, and a hard top. Split window I'm convinced to this day, is only valuable because of its rarity. Obviously this is up for debate, but to far I'm convinced. Regardless, it was the first step toward sports car-dom.

C3's exaggerated the short deck, long hood styling, in part because originally it had a "true" deck since there was no rear hatch glass. every fender and bumper either got rounded or made sharper through the years. Still retained its 70's muscle car lstyling(to me).

C4introduced the wedge look that's either love it or hate it. Was styled like a modern/futuristic sports car with all its sharp lines. First mid-engine corvette. Tons of aluminum suspension pieces to save weight. Later years I think aged far better, rounding off some of the early c4's hard lines. More rounded, but still wedge shape. Also important because it pulled corvette through the second hp wars and is the only car(besides mustang) to survive. Everyone thinks we're currently in the second hp wars, but what about the supra, 3000gt, 300zx, rx7, nsx, cobra mustang, and even the viper.

C5 introduced the rear mounted transaxle. Much larger car then the c4, much larger wheelbase. VERY swoopy styling even compared to late c4's. What most consider the return to hp, but more importantly an engine legacy. 3 different body styles, including Chevy's recognition that a high performance model was still viable. Big butt and all, was a hit.

C6 was first visible headlights since the c1, first non-bottom feeder since the c3(or even before thav you could argue), and the first actual circle tail lights since the early c4's. Back end received much more styling to it, albeit even if not much detail per say. Took c5 styling and made it sharper. C3-ish creased front fenders and sharper rear flaired fenders. Second body style to have a widebody which, as sales show, looks different enough to be noticeably more popular. A "hood scoop", hood window, and 4 different styled fenders introduced.

C7, well, the pics are out there. The corvette all glass hatch is gone, made similar to many other sports cars(blunder in my book as the corvette looses some of its uniqueness, but most on here seem to dig it). Much sharper lines then the c6. Futuristic looking almost.

To say the c2 and c3 were revolutionary(ironic since they used a lot of the same chassis) is a living in the past attitude to the fullest. I could very easily argue the c4 was, despite what people say today. It took a muscle car era design, wiped it clean, and gave it a typical sports car look, that, like the c7 pics, seems futuristic and very techno-ish. C5 was considered far more modern by manufacturing standards, and the c6 has c3/Euro/c5 styling all mixed together, along with a $100,000 car that was a proverbial bitch slap to all of the supercar world. Every corvette has been a big step forward from the past, mechanically and styling wise. Everyone is unique.

zland

Of course the Corvette had more frequent body style changes in the 60's. Lets face it, every manufacture & every model changed almost from year to year. Look at a 1963 Falcon vs a 1964 etc & was not even a sports car. Underneath those 60's car did not change as much as the body style.

capevettes

I do not think that stating that the designs of the 60's changed more radically than they do now has anything to do with living in the past nor does it indicate any belief that they were superior mechanically. Obviously the modern Corvettes are superior in every way as far as mechanicals.

The C4 was a radical departure from the C3 and really ushered in the modern era for Corvette. Mid engine

JLinCA

I did that with my 1987 Vette. I only got up to 150 though

JLinCA

Most definitely. Nothing except the engine in the first year was a carry over from the previous year. C3 to C4 was the most radical change to date.

sportcruiser

My point exactly. Now, try that with a C1, C2 or C3 (it won't be stable). The designs have become less radical because performance is a major design consideration